Washington, D.C.–The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), CitizenGO and the International Organization for the Family (IOF) today wrapped their #FreeSpeechBus tour intended to spark a national discussion about the biological truth of gender with a visit to the nation's capital in Washington, DC. The organizers said the tour revealed the ugly side of the LGBT movement, which engaged in violence and assault, and inflicted substantial property damage, in a failed effort to derail the bus tour. They also said that the response to the tour indicated deep coordination between the LGBT movement, Democratic politicians and anarchists who are committed to the destruction of civil society. Organizers said the tour was a success in that it highlighted the vicious intolerance shown to anyone in society who expresses dissent regarding the transgender agenda.

"We launched the #FreeSpeechBus tour as a way to spark a conversation about gender, that it is determined by biology rather than by emotions and feelings, and to call for all sides to respect the free speech rights of citizens to debate these issues without fear of being demeaned, harassed, or threatened with retaliation," said Brian S. Brown, president of NOM and IOF. "What we encountered was a sustained, violent, coordinated attack designed to shut us down and force us to just go away. They failed to stop the tour or silence us, and, ironically, in the process made our very point that they don't want to debate the issues and instead will use force and political power to silence Christians and all Americans who understand that biology determines gender."

On the first day of the bus tour, the #FreeSpeechBus was attacked by two LGBT activists while parked near the United Nations in New York City. They assaulted the African American bus driver and destroyed several of the bus's windows with a hammer, while also using graffiti to cover the bus with militant "trans liberation" messages. After repairs, the bus continued the tour to Boston, New Haven, Philadelphia and concluded in Washington, DC. Along the way, it was frequently met by an angry mob of LGBT extremists and anarchists. It was revealed that prominent Democratic politicians were involved in promoting the violence and hate, including coordinating with anarchist groups.

"In Philadelphia, Mayor Jim Kenney's office was deeply involved in organizing the violent demonstrations against us, including coordinating with anarchist groups that are closely watched by the FBI," said Ignacio Arsuaga, president of CitizenGo. "The mayor's Office of LGBT Affairs proudly referred to themselves as 'an accomplice' in organizing protests which turned violent, with attacks on the bus and on police officers by gay activists and anarchists. At least one of them was arrested and bus organizers were prevented from speaking, an act of intolerant bullying the Mayor's office takes pride in. Meanwhile, while we were being prevented from engaging in a discussion with the protestors, the mayors of both Philadelphia and Boston ordered LGBT/transgendered flags to be flown at City Hall."

Brown noted that the intolerance and violence shown to those who hold traditional, majoritarian beliefs about the biological nature of gender is a powerful argument why Congress should move forward immediately to pass the First Amendment Defense Act, legislation which would prevent the federal government from discriminating against people of faith based on their views of gender and similar matters. "No American should be subjected to discrimination or harassment by the government simply for standing by their deeply held beliefs about the nature of gender, marriage and similar subjects. Citizens on both sides of these debates should be able to express their viewpoints without the heavy hand of government harassing and discriminating against them."

# # #

To schedule an interview with a representative of any of NOM, IOF, or CitizenGO, please contact:
Joseph Grabowski, [email protected], (202) 276-4404.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

From the BBC comes a disturbing report of a meteoric rise, over the past six years, on referrals to clinicians of children under the age of 18 for treatment to help them make "gender transitions."

The startling figure for the whole age group of one- to eighteen-year-old referrals is the rise from 94 in 2009-2010 to 969 in 2015-2016: an increase of 930%! This includes a stunning rise in referrals for children between the tender ages of five and nine years old: within that age group, the rise in referrals over the period studied has been nearly 600%!

In explaining the phenomenon, the BBC quotes the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), an official specialized service provided under England's National Health Service (NHS):

GIDS, based in north London, is the NHS's dedicated gender identity development service for children and takes referrals from GPs, paediatricians, mental health services and schools across the country.

Its director, Polly Carmichael, said in recent years more younger children were making gender transitions and there was no "right or wrong approach", with many families reporting their child was happier living in another gender.

[...]

In terms of the general increase in referrals, GIDS said there could be a number of reasons, but increased awareness and acceptance of gender issues - particularly via the media and social networks - was a likely factor.

The article also notes that Carmichael acknowledged that, "research published in the Netherlands suggest[s] that 'for some young people who make an early social transition it may be difficult to de-transition if their gender identity develops in another direction'."

We hope that the lesson of that research is taken to heart and that those to whom these poor children are referred do not push them into making a life-changing decision which they are mentally and emotionally too immature to grasp. Indeed, we have already seen in many ways how "gender transition" decisions can be regretting in a very high percentage of cases.

In any case, this article points to a troubling trend of how the permeation throughout our culture of radical LGBT ideology is beginning to have a problematic impact on the youngest and most vulnerable in our society.

Pope Francis has lamented that children are being taught at school that gender can be a choice, adding that his predecessor, Benedict XVI has labeled current times "the epoch of sin against God the Creator."

Francis weighed in with his view on gender and what he said was that of the emeritus pontiff while meeting privately last week with bishops from Poland during his pilgrimage there. The Vatican released a transcript Tuesday of those closed-door remarks.

The pope said he wanted to conclude his remarks by reflecting on this: "We are living a moment of annihilation of man as image of God."

Francis said: "Today, in schools they are teaching this to children — to children! — that everyone can choose their gender."

Without specifying, he blamed this on textbooks supplied by "persons and institutions who donate money." The pope blamed what he called "ideological colonizing" backed by "very influential countries" which he didn’t identify.

One such "colonization" he said — "I’ll say it clearly with its first and last name — is gender."

Throughout history it's been obvious to any observer that children in intact families with a married mother and father do much better than children from broken homes or those living in alternative family structures. In recent years, there's been an attempt to deny that reality and convince people that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are somehow exempted from the realities of family life, claiming there are "no differences" in outcomes for these kids or even sometimes suggesting they do better than children raised by a married mother and father in the home. Increasingly, social scientists have been examining this "no differences" claim and, as you might suspect, find it without merit. A distinguished social scientist from the University of Virginia, W. Bradford Wilcox, writes a detailed piece this week for National Review reviewing three recent developments that make it harder for the "family structure denialists" to continue to make the "no differences" claim. He says:

"It’s been a rough two weeks for the family-structure denialists, those progressive academics (Philip Cohen, “How to Live in a World Where Marriage Is in Decline”), journalists (Katie Roiphe, “New York Times, Stop Moralizing About Single Mothers”), and pundits (Matthew Yglesias, “The ‘Decline’ of Marriage Isn’t a Problem”) who seek to minimize or deny the importance of marriage and family structure. That’s because three new pieces of scholarship — a journal, a report, and a study — were released this month that solidify the growing scientific consensus that marriage and family structure matter for children, families, and the nation as a whole."

The studies and reports mention by Wilcox confirm many of the outcome problems that children who lack a married mother and father in the home experience, especially boys lacking the presence of their father at home. Wilcox says these children "are floundering in school and society" and details findings including problems in the areas of truancy and educational attainment, increased behavioral problems, higher cognitive disability, perform worse on standardized school tests and are less likely to graduate from high school. And the article details important new findings that states with higher levels of married parenthood enjoy higher levels of growth, economic mobility for children growing up poor, higher median family income and markedly lower levels of child poverty. Says Wilcox,

"[W]ith study after study showing that children, families, and now even states benefit from strong and stable married families, the job of those who would seek to deny that marriage and family structure also play an important role — the family-structure denialists — is getting harder and harder. That’s because the facts just aren’t with those who seek to deny the scientific evidence that family change is having a major impact on our social environment and — in particular — our boys.

On the eve of Pope Francis’ visit to the United States, he has issued a strong and unequivocal statement in support of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and notes that traditional marriage is under attack “by powerful contrary projects supported by ideological colonization.” The Pope said that married couples are “in the best position” to introduce Jesus Christ to others. He said the unique joy that the Lord enables families and couples to experience in the intimacy of domestic life, both in moments of joy and suffering, "must be witnessed to, announced and communicated externally, so that others, in turn, take the same path."

Pope Francis told couples to defend God's design for the family as the union of a man and woman for the procreation of children, and urged them to be merciful to those whose marriages have failed.

Today "the family - as God wants it, composed of a man and a woman for the good of the spouses and also the generation and education of children - is deformed by powerful contrary projects supported by ideological colonization," the Pope said Sept. 10.

A family which is filled with the presence of God, he said, "speaks for itself of God's love for all men."

. . .

The unique joy that the Lord enables families and couples to experience in the intimacy of domestic life, both in moments of joy and suffering, "must be witnessed to, announced and communicated externally, so that others, in turn, take the same path," he said.

The Pope encouraged couples to live the movement's spirituality and commitments in a deep way, saying these allow couples to live their married life confidently, following the path of the Gospel.

. . .

He also encouraged the couples to draw close to the increasing number of wounded families who suffer due to either a lack of work, concern for a child, the distance, or an absence of a family member or a violent environment.

"We must have the courage to enter into contact with these families," he said, adding that it must be done "in a discreet but generous way, materially, humanly or spiritually, in those circumstances where they are vulnerable."

Pope Francis closed by encouraging couples to instruments of Christ's mercy toward those whose marriages have failed, and stressed that married fidelity is a gift from God.

Mercy has been shown to "every one of us," Francis said. He added that couples who are united and happy could better understand the pain and the suffering caused by betrayal, abandonment and a lack of love.

"It is necessary, therefore, that you bring your witness and your experience to help Christian communities to discern the real situations in which these people find themselves, to welcome them with their wounds, and to help them to journey in faith and in truth," he said.

"Nor must you forget the unspeakable suffering of the children who experience these painful family situations: you can give a lot to them."

Pope Francis asked those present to pray for the upcoming Synod on the Family, and for all their reflections on the "vital cell of our societies" within the difficult current cultural context.

The media is awash with stories promoting transgenderism, touting celebrities like Bruce Jenner as being “heroic” and featuring transgender characters in several television series. But do reality shows actually depict the reality of what happens to children and families when a man denies his innate maleness or a woman denies her innate femaleness, and attempt to trick nature and “change” their gender to suit what they say is their “identity?” Denise Shick was raised by a “transgender” father, and the reality of her experience bears no resemblance to what is being pushed by Hollywood as heroic and healthy:

I am one of those children. I was raised by a transgender father.

I can testify to the emotional strain and confusion that my father’s life played in my sexual and gender identity. I sought out our neighbors for a foster father. Many times I pretended that one of my uncles or a friend’s father was my make-believe father.

I was so hungry for my father; a transgender “mom” would not fit that need no matter how badly the adult wished it to.

My father experimented with my make-up and clothes, and by 7th grade I had decided that alcohol was the easiest method to numb my own pain. By the beginning of high school, I wondered if life was worth living.

Shick continues to relate her difficulties and experiences at the hands of her “transgender” ‘parent.’ She finishes by challenging, and begging America to do the right thing, if for no other reason, than for the sake of the children:

We prioritize adult’s sexual preferences ahead of what is best for their children.

As a culture we are very willing to address the emotional distress, isolation and other negative issues of people who come out as transgender adults. But we have not even begun to discuss the issues involved and the impact this has on their wives and children.

I’m begging America to wake up to what is being done for the sake of society and for children worldwide! This cultural celebration of transgenderism, for me as a daughter of a transgender father, is misguided and insensitive.

In our country’s most recent challenge regarding gay marriage, six adult children raised in same-sex or transgender households came forward to address the importance they placed on having both a mother and a father.

I wonder if anyone is listening to the voices of the adult children that should count and be heard.

As I know from firsthand experience, all children—including those being adopted—deserve a mom and a dad.

While social scientists are busy faking studies to show growing support for redefining marriage, or designing studies with a small number of participants who have an interest in the outcome of the study, it’s striking to note what they are not studying: the mental health impact on students of the cultural and media movement to proclaim all things gay to be good and healthy. An article at The Federalist reviews this phenomenon in the field of social work, a field that ordinarily would be expected to help assess mental health issues among their clientele:

Joseph Turner, who has a masters in social work, comments on the adverse effects the current political correctness can have on the mental health of people:

Mental health treatment requires close analysis of every aspect of a person’s life. We put together the puzzle pieces that make up a human being. We inquire how many hours someone slept last night and how often he or she woke up. We form theories around their precise level of eye contact or rate of speech. We ponder how closely they were held as infants. To declare that all claims to sexual orientation are above scrutiny is to analytically cripple ourselves. We’ve replaced the microscope with rose-colored glasses.

. . .

We live in a society where LGBT has saturated both political agenda and popular culture. Broken family structures, abuse, and relationship instability are tragically prevalent. In such a climate, reported same-sex attraction could occur for a lot of reasons. Some of them might be uncomfortable. To demand its blind, universal acceptance is both delusional and damaging to mental health. Dogmatic affirmation of all claims to sexual preference might well encourage behavior rooted in pathology.

He continues to suggest that the effects on children can be devastating, especially if it was the choice of the “parents” to switch from a heterosexual relationship to a same-sex relationship:

The mommies (or daddies, as the case may be) might do everything “right” to give their children a healthy, stable upbringing, yet the kids are still at risk to grow up troubled and unsure how to relate to the world around them… nobody among my colleagues acknowledged a problem. There was no questioning of the arrangement, no hint of concern. Everyone involved with the family was wholly positive about the mommies, even as they scratched their heads and wondered what was making the kids angry or depressed or confused.

It seems that the dangers of not only same-sex marriage, but also the same-sex mind control in popular culture is real and adversely affects the average person.

But the mental-health field is mostly professional, and thus subject to the academic and political authorities. It’s aimed at the practitioner rather than the pioneer. This leaves it unknowingly vulnerable to the powerful LGBT lobby. Even as we work to build people from the ground up, we blindly accept the ideas coming from the top down. If a professor or a textbook states that all sexual or gender orientation is above question, then so be it. The contradiction this presents to our greater body of psychological thinking goes unnoticed.

As any devoted parent will attest to, all parents want what is best for the child. While it can be hard for some to admit, the facts are there: children do best with a mom and a dad. And when they are told that gender is irrelevant, it is the children who suffer the devastating effects.

There are proponents in academia who have suggested that parents who educate their children to the best of their ability, is “unfair” to other children who do not receive the same opportunity. As ridiculous as this idea seems, it is an honest, though outlandish, theory that some want put into practice. Adam Swift (Prof. at University of Warwick) is a key proponent of this theory, and he seems to have backing from other academics such as Peter Singer (Ethics Prof. at University of Princeton) as well as public figures such as Pres. Barack Obama:

“Kids start going to private schools, kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks, an anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together,” he said.

…

“One way philosophers might think about solving the social-justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family,” he (Adam Swift) continues, cheerfully. “If the family is this source of unfairness in society, then it looks plausible to think that if we were to abolish the family, we would create a more level playing field.”

The article continues to explain the folly of holding ‘equality’ as the highest good:

Sarcasm aside, we owe Swift a real debt of gratitude for demonstrating the folly of Progressive equality-worship. Although his ideas are at the extreme end of the Progressive spectrum, the language of “equality” and the decrying of “inequality” is pervading our culture.

Of course, American liberty was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. But when people speak of equality these days, they usually mean not fundamental equality before the law, but rather state-engineered equality of socioeconomic outcomes. Perhaps by seeing this ideology taken to its insane extreme, we can recognize its failings more clearly.

The idea is to take all power, even from the parents, and center it into the State (Federal Government) so that it may decide what is best in all things.

It’s hard not to see that beneath all the egalitarian language lies a bald-faced power grab. Swift—and those who share his worldview—believe they are entitled to make mandatory rules for others which they refuse to adopt for themselves… Swift is operating squarely within the tradition of all Marxist dictators past and present, who style themselves champions of the common man but never deny themselves the luxuries of the ruling class.

“How are heterosexuals harmed by same-sex marriage?” “Why don’t you want two people of the same gender who love each other to be married?” “Same-sex parents are just as good as heterosexual parents.”

Many of those advocating to redefine marriage have sought to turn marriage and parenthood into a political cause. But the truth of the matter is that marriage and parenthood are anything but political. Rather, they are universal truths that are ontologically, sociologically, and not to mention, spiritually based.

Already, we see an increasing number of adults who were once raised in same-sex households speaking out about the void in their lives. These courageous individuals are giving a face to the powerful social research findings uncovered by researchers such as Mark Regnerus and others.

As more and more same-sex couples assert their "right" to children, the voices of the children themselves are becoming more prominent. Here are excerpts from two of them who are speaking out on why children will always want and always need a mom and a dad:

In an open letter published on Public Discourse, Katy Faust writes to Justice Kennedy, explaining not only how same-sex marriage hurts children, but how it encourages an alternative form of parenting that denies a child their right to biological parents. She writes:

While it’s true that parents will be missing from a child’s life for many different reasons, redefining marriage will change marriage as a whole and thus parenting for many kids. Because the government’s interest in marriage is children, and the historic basis for marriage has been a procreative relationship, this new genderless definition which excludes a mother or father actually encourages “one or both biological parents to be missing from a child’s life.”

She goes on to laud the UN for recognizing the right of a child “to know and be cared for by his or her parents”:

We should follow the lead of the UN and prioritize the rights of children, who have an inherent right to their parents. Adults have the right to choose to enter into a partnership that cannot produce children, and government should not prevent such a decision. But as a society, our laws must uphold and encourage the family structure that best protects children’s rights.

A woman raised by two mothers has admitted the experience was “damaging and confusing”, and has warned of the potential for “irreparable, long-term damage to a child”.

Hetty Baynes Russell, 58, said her unconventional parental setup fostered “a life of confusion and a lack of emotional security”, which landed her in therapy for many years, “trying to make sense of it all”.

"Far from being a healthy, nurturing state of affairs, this arrangement — where I was caught in a destructive, triangular battle for my mother’s affection with another woman, while forced to watch helplessly as my father was emasculated and airbrushed from our lives — was simultaneously damaging and confusing”.

As same-sex marriage proponents continue to push hard for marriage redefinition, they falsely claim that they are "on the right side of history.” However, as these voices and many others are telling us, factual history will never be on their side: history shows us that marriage is and has always been between a man and woman. Our ancestral identity, and the very fact that we are here today is a testimony to the natural union of a man and a woman. These children raised in same-sex households understand the cost of redefining marriage. Let's listen to them: the real voices from the same-sex marriage movement.

"This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it." - G.K. Chesterton

2015 March for Marriage

When: Saturday, April 25, 2015, at Noon ET

Where: Union Square, South of Capitol Reflecting Pool, Washington, DC

Who: Marriage defenders, champions, and leaders from across the nation join together to defend marriage, family, and American liberties!

Why: To defend marriage as the unique union between 1 man and 1 woman; to protect the family as the building block of society; to ensure that our children will have a future where basic American rights and liberties are honored, preserved, and protected.

Perhaps it is worth pausing to ask why we care—or should care—so much about intellectual freedom in the academy. Why ought we be concerned about the rights of an administrator who is fired for stating her moral views by a university that says it is morally neutral and nonsectarian, or the freedom of an assistant professor who is denied tenure because he would not toe the party line at such a university? Why should we care about students who are punished with a bad grade for having the temerity to state views that are out of line with those of the course instructor? What is it about intellectual or academic freedom that makes it worth worrying about—and worth fighting for?

[...]

I have already mentioned that some partisans of academic freedom misguidedly depict truth as an enemy of freedom. They appeal to, or presuppose, a species of relativism or subjectivism or radical skepticism in defending freedom of inquiry. Now, it is certainly true that one reason for respecting academic freedom is that people can be mistaken about what they regard—even securely regard—as true. Indeed, even unanimity of belief does not guarantee its correctness. But I think that the possibility of error is not the primary or most powerful reason for honoring academic freedom and protecting it even in areas where we are secure in our knowledge of the truth.

The stronger and deeper reason is that freedom is the condition of our fuller appropriation of the truth. I use the term appropriation because knowledge and truth have their value for human beings precisely as fulfillment of capacities for understanding and judgment. The liberal arts liberate the human spirit because knowledge of truth—attained by the exercise of our rational faculties—is intrinsically and not merely instrumentally valuable. “Useful knowledge” is, of course, all to the good. It is wonderful when human knowledge can serve other human goods, such as health, as in the biomedical sciences, or economic efficiency and growth, or the constructing of great buildings and bridges, or any of a million other worthy purposes. But even “useful knowledge” is often more than instrumentally valuable, and a great deal of knowledge that wouldn’t qualify as “useful” in the instrumental sense is intrinsically and profoundly enriching and liberating. This is why we honor—and should honor even more highly than we currently do in our institutions of higher learning—excellence in the humanities and pure science (social and natural).

Knowledge that elevates and enriches—knowledge that liberates the human spirit—cannot be merely notional. It must be appropriated. It is not—it cannot be—a matter of affirming or even believing correct propositions. The knowledge that elevates and liberates is knowledge not only that something is the case but also why and how it is the case. Typically such knowledge does more than settle something in one’s mind; it opens new avenues of exploration. Its payoff includes new sets of questions, new lines of inquiry.

Let us return, then, to the question of why we should respect freedom even where truth is known securely. It is because freedom—freedom to inquire, freedom to assent or withhold assent as one’s best judgment dictates—is a condition of the personal appropriation of the truth by the human subject, the human person for the sake of whom, for the flourishing of whom, for the liberation of whom, knowledge of truth is intrinsically valuable. And it is intrinsically valuable not in some abstract sense but precisely as an aspect of the well-being and fulfillment of human beings—rational creatures whose flourishing consists in part in intellectual inquiry, understanding, and judgment and in the practice of the virtues that make possible excellence in the intellectual question.

The freedom we must defend is freedom for the practice of these virtues. It is freedom for excellence, the freedom that enables us to master ourselves. It is a freedom that, far from being negated by rigorous standards of scholarship, demands them. It is not the freedom of “if it feels good, do it”; it is, rather, the freedom of self-transcendence, the freedom from slavery to self.

On April 30, the university rejected SCOP’s request to become an officially recognized student club, citing a “recommendation” by a group of student government officials who judged that “there was not a need” for SCOP’s presence on campus.

The official reason given for rejecting SCOP’s application is “redundancy,” a transparent reason for rejection that even a momentary glance through the names of some of the more than 500 recognized student clubs punctures. Additionally, when pressed to identify the groups the missions of which allegedly make SCOP’s acceptance redundant, the president of the aforementioned student government group listed several groups that don’t at all claim to advocate for child-oriented public policies.

Furthermore, the rejection letter came from the same Student Activities official who told SCOP leaders in early April that the SCOP petition was “inaccurate” and suggested that its language would make some members of the Notre Dame community feel “unwelcome.” She further intimated concerns that the petition’s authors were misquoting their sources, and took twice as long as official Student Activities Office policy standards dictate to return a request (which was filed on behalf of a recognized student group) to publicize the petition in Notre Dame’s student center.

As demonstrated by their resilience, the students of SCOP are not going to back down. They are diligently and tenaciously standing up for marriage on campus, despite the apparent hostility of some of their peers who do not share their pro-family sentiment. Marriage defenders can look forward to what SCOP will accomplish on campus in future years.

Students for Child-Oriented Policy, a group of pro-marriage Notre Dame students, remains resolute in their endeavor to be recognized as an official university club. The University of Notre Dame denied them official status as a club on the grounds that other groups at Notre Dame have similar missions.

Fox News reported:

The group, Students for Child-Oriented Policy (SCOP), was rejected in an April 30 letter from the university’s Student Activities Office to Tiernan Kane, the club’s proposed president. The decision was based on a recommendation by the university’s Club Coordination Council, a division of student government, that found the club’s mission “closely mirrored” that of other undergraduate student clubs at the 12,000-student university.

“In evaluating a proposal, approval is based on several things,” read the letter to Kane. “We consider the general purpose of a club, uniqueness to campus, proposed activities, a clear constitution, a strong understanding of budget planning, projected membership, opportunity for membership, among other things.”

Due to the perceived duplicative mission of the group, SCOP’s proposal was rejected, according to the letter, which did not reference other university-recognized groups.

“As such, the Club Coordination Council felt there was not a need for another similar-type club,” the letter continued. “You are encouraged to contact the Club Coordination Council’s Social Service Division to learn about collaborating with the existing clubs working toward your mutual goals.”

SCOP, which was founded in January, is comprised of Notre Dame undergraduate and graduate students focused on the debate about marriage in Indiana, where the school is based, according to its Facebook profile, which had 69 members as of Tuesday.

“SCOP's overarching concern is that policymakers are failing to approach their task with a view to how those policies will affect children,” the group’s Facebook page reads. “They seem to conceive of policy only as it will affect the stable, independent adult with resources. We see this approach affecting a number of important political issues, not just the current question about the definition of marriage. Still, marriage is both foundational and at a critical point in this state and country, and therefore, SCOP has decided to focus on the issue in its initial conference.”

The group seeks to unite a network of students across The Hoosier State in favor of “child-oriented policies,” according to its organizers.

“We reject the view that the young have agreed to redefine marriage,” the group’s Facebook page continues. “Rather, we think that they have not explored the meaning and importance of marriage.”

Messages seeking comment from Kane and other SCOP students were not returned early Tuesday.

Kane told The Cardinal Newman Society he believes Notre Dame should take the lead on marriage, much like it did in publicly voicing its support for the Dream Act and other controversial topics.

“The Catholic Church's teaching on marriage, which is universally intelligible to human reason, is informed by a tradition of philosophical reflection that reaches back at least as far as Plato,” he said. “As the nation's premier Catholic university, Notre Dame has the ability, and thus the responsibility, to contribute to -- indeed, to lead -- public discourse about marriage.”

A petition created by the group calling on Notre Dame to “take up the defense of marriage at this pivotal moment in the national discussion” had 948 signatures as of Tuesday.

“We understand marriage to be that natural institution that unites one man and one woman in a comprehensive sharing of life ‘ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring,’” the petition reads.

Timothy Bradley, another SCOP member, indicated that the group is undergoing an appeal process in hopes of reversing the decision.

The full Fox News article can be found here. The students told the National Catholic Register that they do not use religious arguments to advocate for marriage:

...Kane, the prospective SCOP president, said CCC mistakenly conflated his group with being a “Catholic” organization.

“SCOP is not a religious group,” Kane said. “Our application clearly conveyed our group’s nonpartisan, nonsectarian focus on public policy as it relates to issues that specially affect children.”

McEntee declined to discuss CCC’s discussion and vote — a two-thirds majority is needed to approve a club application — in greater detail because the process is meant to be confidential. CCC’s student membership is also private.

In its proposed constitution, SCOP describes itself as a group whose purpose is to “educate and energize the public, especially young people,” about a child-oriented approach to public policy. Although its public-policy prescriptions, which Kane said are derived from reason, align with Catholic teaching, he said SCOP is not meant to be “an explicitly Catholic organization.”

...After SCOP was established in January, its first step was to circulate a petition that called upon the university to take a clear public stand in support of the true definition of marriage and to take “serious and sustained action” to improve the public understanding of the natural institution.

When SCOP drafted its petition, the Indiana Legislature was debating a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Both chambers of the legislature approved the amendment, which required approval in another legislative session before it could be presented to Indiana’s voters.

Tim Bradley, a Notre Dame student and the prospective treasurer of the group, said SCOP pushed the petition because the group believed Notre Dame’s administration had been “totally silent” on the issue.

“The way we see it, Notre Dame has a responsibility to witness to the truth of marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” Tim Bradley said.

It's clear that SCOP will not back down when it comes to defending marriage on campus. They are boldly defying the liberal myth that young people think marriage should be redefined. Hats off to these courageous students who continue to stand up for marriage!

Privacy For All Students (PFAS), a grassroots organization founded in 2011, announced Sunday that they hit the 620,000 signature mark, which is well above the minimum needed for an initiative to get on the ballot.

Karen England, member of the PFAS coalition's executive committee, said in a statement that she believed the number might be the largest amount of signatories garnered for any California ballot initiative.

"As far as we are aware, this is the largest number of volunteer signatures ever submitted in a California referendum campaign," said England.

We've been keeping our readers informed about the ongoing efforts in California to overturn AB 1266, the "Co-ed Bathroom Law" - efforts which have brought together a broad coalition effort in the Privacy for All Students campaign, including NOM California and NOM's political consultant Frank Schubert.

In case you missed it, Frank was interviewed last Friday for National Review Online and explained to Alec Torres why he is optimistic about the initiative underway there:

Once people become aware of [the law], then they oppose it.... We’ve done a survey and what we’ve found is that only 35 percent of voters support this law, and 51 percent oppose it. When you [talk with individuals and] go through the pro and con arguments, we end up at over 60 percent opposition to the law.

A victorious repeal of the law is almost certain if the matter can be put on the ballot. That's what the Privacy for All Students coalition is busy working to do, gathering petition signatures to meet a November 8th deadline.